Davy v. McNeill
| Citation | 31 N.M. 7,240 P. 482 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 3073.,3073. |
| Parties | DAVYv.McNEILL et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Syllabus by the Court.
The title, “An act in relation to irrigation districts” to chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 clearly expresses the subject of said act as contemplated by section 16, article 4 of the Constitution of New Mexico.
Section 1 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 does not violate section 18, article 2, and section 24, article 4, of the Constitution of the state of New Mexico, nor the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
And the same is not class legislation.
Any legislative classification that is, or could seem reasonable to the Legislature, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The Legislature of a state has a wide range of discrimination in classifying, and it is sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Constitution if the classification is practical and not palpably arbitrary.
A “general law” is one that operates on all objects of legislation distinguished by reasonable classification. It must be general in its application to a particular class and all of the class within like circumstances.
Chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 is a general law.
Section 4 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 gives a sufficient opportunity for property owners to be heard after notice on the question of benefits, or whether or not land proposed to be taken in an irrigation district would in fact be benefited, and said law does not violate the “due process of law” provision of the federal and state Constitutions.
The fact that only resident freeholders may sign the initiatory petition for creating an irrigation district under chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 does not deprive an owner of property without due process of law. Section 3 of said act is permissive, and does not exclude any authorized person from representing landowners.
The fact that the lands included in an irrigation district organized under chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 are assessed on a rate per acre basis is not repugnant to any provision of the Constitution of New Mexico or of the United States.
Section 5 of chapter 41 of the Session Laws of 1919, providing for certain qualifications for electors in irrigation districts, is not repugnant to section 1, article 7, of the Constitution of New Mexico, as officers of such irrigation districts are not “public officers,” as contemplated by said provision of the Constitution of New Mexico.
Irrigation districts organized under chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919, are not “municipal corporations” in the sense used in section 13 of article 5, or in section 3 of article 8 of the state Constitution.
By “a majority of the qualified electors,” as used in section 15 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919, is meant a majority of the qualified electors actually voting, and not a majority of the qualified electors of an irrigation district.
Section 4 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 does not require separate and distinct orders allowing the prayer of the petition and defining and establishing the boundaries and designating the name of a proposed irrigation district.
Where the polls at an irrigation district election were kept open from 8 o'clock a. m. to 6 o'clock p. m. instead of from 9 o'clock a. m. to 6 o'clock p. m., as required by the general election laws of the state, and it appears from the evidence that all the votes were cast for the irrigation bonds being voted upon, and there is nothing to indicate there would have been any change in the result if the polls had not been opened until 9 o'clock, there being no claim of fraud or ulterior motives, the election was not void.
In this case, the petition filed with the board of county commissioners complied with section 1 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919.
In this case, the outside boundary of the district was sufficiently described by metes and bounds to comply with chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919.
A bond which provides: “Now, therefore, if the principal does not pay to the county of Valencia, all costs incurred,” etc., will be held to be binding, and that the word “not” was a clerical error, and that it was the intention of the parties to make a statutory bond, and they are bound by their evident intention.
Section 4 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 is complied with in defining the boundaries of the proposed district by the board of county commissioners, although reference is made to the initial petition for the boundaries.
A contract by landowners to convey their claims of water rights to an irrigation district, conditioned upon the organization of such district within a reasonable time, is valid.
Prior to voting upon the issuance of bonds under section 15 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 it is necessary that an estimate of the money required be determined and based upon some definite plan for the construction of the irrigation system for which such bonds are to be issued.
Where all the members of the board of directors are present and attending a meeting of an irrigation district organized under chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919, held for the disposition of the business of said district, the acts done in such meeting are not void, although the meeting was not formally “called.”
The fact that the board of county commissioners canvassed the returns of the election held, as provided by section 15 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919, after the same had been canvassed by the directors of the irrigation district, does not render such election void.
The provision of section 51 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 for the publication of a notice of election for “three successive weeks in a newspaper,” etc., requires a publication in three successive issues of the newspaper, and does not require a publication for 3 full weeks, or 21 days.
Chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 makes no provision for notice to landowners and hearing upon the enforcement and levy of assessments against the lands benefited to obtain funds for paying interest and retiring bonds; the Legislature having provided that such assessment be based upon a rate per acre basis, and is purely a matter of mathematical calculation, and no notice to landowners and hearing is necessary, and is not on that account repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the like provision of the Constitution of New Mexico.
Appeal from District Court, Sierra County; Owen, Judge.
Suit by Thomas Davy against T. J. McNeill and others, constituting the Board of Directors of the Bluewater-Toltec Irrigation District and others, to enjoin issuance of bonds of the district. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action in equity brought by the appellant (plaintiff below) Thomas Davy, against T. J. McNeill and others, being the president, secretary, and board of directors of Bluewater-Toltec irrigation district, the said district, and T. J. McNeill, W. A. Thigpin, and H. J. Haverkampf. Its object was to enjoin the issuance of certain bonds the said Bluewater-Toltec irrigation district, defendant, in preparing to issue under the authority given such irrigation districts by chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919, under which the Bluewater-Toltec irrigation district was organized, or attempted to be organized. This act of the Legislature itself is attacked upon many constitutional grounds, both state and federal. Also the organization of the district as well as the proceedings for issuing the bonds are attacked on certain legal grounds mentioned in the opinion.
Chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 was an amendment of chapter 109 of the Session Laws of 1909. Both the Session Acts of 1909 and 1919 mentioned are largely copied verbatim from what is known as the “Wright Irrigation Act” of the laws of the state of California (St. 1887, p. 29). This act has been before the California courts and the federal courts many times; and a number of the constitutional questions raised in this case have been determined by those courts.
It will be unnecessary here to state specifically the various grounds alleged for obtaining the relief sought, as these will appear in the opinion. The parties will be designated “plaintiff” and “defendant” as they appeared in the court below.
The fact that the board of county commissioners canvassed the returns of the election held, as provided by section 15 of chapter 41 of the New Mexico Sess.Laws of 1919, after the same had been canvassed by the directors of the irrigation district, does not render such election void.
Downer & Keleher, of Albuquerque, for appellant.
Reid, Hervey & Iden, of Albuquerque, for appellees.
BRICE, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
[1] 1. Chapter 41 of the New Mexico Session Laws of 1919 is a comprehensive act, providing for the organization of irrigation districts in New Mexico. The subject of the act as stated in the title is “An act in relation to irrigation districts.” Section 16, article 4, of the New Mexico Constitution, is:
“The subject of every bill shall be clearly expressed in its title, and no bill embracing more than one subject shall be passed except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification or revision of the laws; but if any subject is embraced in any act which is not expressed in its title, only so much of the act as is not so expressed shall be void.”
The object of the act is to provide a means for the organization of irrigation districts in New Mexico. There is nothing in the act that does not relate to irrigation districts.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Altman v. Kilburn
...... derive their authority from the general taxing power.” Justices Bickley and Watson in their special concurring opinion in Davy v. McNeill et al., 31 N.M. 7, 42, 240 P. 482, 497, quoted with approval Cooley on Taxation, 4th Ed., as follows: “While in a ......
-
City of Raton v. Sproule
...research and the research of counsel for the parties has failed to disclose a similar case in any other jurisdiction. In Davy v. McNeill, 31 N.M. 7, 240 P. 482 (1925), although the problem involved was quite unlike that presented here, there was involved the question of the constitutionalit......
-
Chase v. Lujan, 4833
...and he must do certain things. Elections are determined by those who vote, not by those merely potentially qualified to vote. Davy v. McNeill, 31 N.M. 7, 240 P. 482; Fabro v. Town of Gallup, 15 N.M. 108, 103 P. 271, 273. In White v. Commissioners of Multnomah County, 13 Or. 317, 10 P. 484, ......
-
Howell v. Burk
...Thus, if there is no violation of equal protection in this case, § 23-1-26, supra, is not special legislation. See Davy v. McNeill, 31 N.M. 7, 240 P. 482 (1925) where the two concepts are discussed To answer the equal protection question we must consider the purpose of the statute. McGeehan......